Re: Fw: Checkpoint 3.3

I think you're misreading the checkpoint. I don't think it means that you have to use CSS, if vanilla HTML with no deprecated elements or attributes will do the job. As I read it, *if you choose to control* layout and presentation, then you must use CSS instead of deprecated HTML. If you *don't* choose to control layout and presentation, but leave it up to the browser defaults, then HTML alone is quite sufficient.

In the case of the example you provided, your page appears to be fully accessible, but it uses deprecated HTML elements to control the appearance of the page. Here, CSS would be required. Or, simply strip out the deprecated elements, and you're fine without CSS.

About other government efforts: I'm in the process of bringing EEOC's site up to Double A, hopefully within the next two weeks. Developing new material will be the next item on my to-do list. All of the new material will meet Triple A, and the site as a whole should get there sometime before the end of the calendar year.

>>> "Robert Neff" <robneff@home.com> 07/15 11:24 PM >>>
I do not doubt the CSS's usability.  I question why I am being forced to use
CSS to obtain a Double A conformance level.  I can make a web page that is
accessible using HTML 3.2 and 4.  Before the recommendation, I had done that
at Department of Labor before CSS was widely used, see
http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/programs/dbra/index.html.  I had designed
a layout without tables for formatting and in HTML 4 Transitional.  This was
the closest thing to adopting over 90% of the checkpoints.  BUT I used HTML
not  CSS.  If I were still there, I would be livid about Checkpoint 3.3.
Now all of a sudden I have to switch because another language is wanted.
CSS has design guidelines and so does HTML and both must be properly
applied.

Received on Friday, 16 July 1999 09:08:02 UTC